Google’s Brazil chief detained by federal police over YouTube video

Officials say a video attacking a mayoral candidate should have been removed.

Fábio José Silva Coelho, the President of Google in Brazil, was detained for questioning and then released today, one day after a regional judge ordered the arrest of Coelho for refusing to remove a user-uploaded video attacking and "slandering" a mayoral candidate in the country. Google has long affirmed that it is not responsible for the content of the videos on its site.

Brazilian police questioned Coelho, but released him saying that he had a "low potential to offend" and had signed a statement agreeing to appear in front of the authorities when summoned, according to the BBC. Officially, Coelho was charged with violating an electoral code that prohibits offending the dignity of a candidate. While Google may yet prove that it is not responsible for the content, failure to remove content ordered illegal by a judge in Brazil could bring a sentence of up to a year in jail.

"Google is appealing the decision that ordered the removal of the video on YouTube because, as a platform, Google is not responsible for the content posted to its site," a spokesperson told Reuters.

YouTube's responsibility or lack thereof for content posted to its site has been scrutinized quite closely in the last few weeks, with an incendiary video shot in the US portraying Mohammed in an unflattering light sparking riots in the Middle East. A state court in São Paulo, Brazil yesterday gave Google 10 days to remove that video as well, as it has in Afghanistan, Saudia Arabia, Lybia, Egypt, Indonesia, and India. In the US, one of the actors in the offending video recently asked a court to have the video removed, but that motion was denied.

It's crazy that all this stuff is happening because of one video. I also doubt anyone who has been doing these crazy things has seen the bloody video, and I remember something about that specific video being uploaded a while ago, and only now getting attention.

I guess the crazy people just needed something to blame their actions on...

Both the video in this article and the anti-Islamic video can be as insulting and undignified as the authors desire. The point is, freedom of speech and expression should be protected, regardless of the content. If the content offends you, DON'T WATCH IT. True democracy cannot be sustained under censorship.

Yeah, funny how things are twisted. "Google is not responsible for the content posted to its site." Yet if asked by a media corporation, they have no trouble pulling or blocking any type of content quickly. If Google wants, they can - and do - block access to any file posted on YouTube, based on geolocation and content fingerprinting. Here we have the case of a judge telling them to take a video down because it makes claims against a candidate just a few weeks before the elections, claims which may or not be false - that is not for Google to decide, their task is to obey a court order. But suddenly they can no longer do what they are already doing for content providers for years?

Yeah, funny how things are twisted. "Google is not responsible for the content posted to its site." Yet if asked by a media corporation, they have no trouble pulling or blocking any type of content quickly. If Google wants, they can - and do - block access to any file posted on YouTube, based on geolocation and content fingerprinting. Here we have the case of a judge telling them to take a video down because it makes claims against a candidate just a few weeks before the elections, claims which may or not be false - that is not for Google to decide, their task is to obey a court order. But suddenly they can no longer do what they are already doing for content providers for years?

its different. Media corporations asks THEIR videos to be pulled down... videos they have right to (well at least in theory. theres lots of abuse)this asks google to pull video down uploaded by legitimate owner of the video

Yeah, funny how things are twisted. "Google is not responsible for the content posted to its site." Yet if asked by a media corporation, they have no trouble pulling or blocking any type of content quickly. If Google wants, they can - and do - block access to any file posted on YouTube, based on geolocation and content fingerprinting. Here we have the case of a judge telling them to take a video down because it makes claims against a candidate just a few weeks before the elections, claims which may or not be false - that is not for Google to decide, their task is to obey a court order. But suddenly they can no longer do what they are already doing for content providers for years?

So you'd be more comfortable with Google taking down anything anyone asks them to? Would you feel the same if China asks Google (with Judge's order of course) to take down everything that shed the Chinese government in a bad light?

One is copyright infringement, the other is censorship, how can you equate them to be the same thing?

First of all, Google (the branch) is incorporated in Brazil, so by law it is a Brazilian company and has to follow Brazilian laws. Google is a legal company in Brazil, with local offices, executives, employees and engineers and offers products in Brazil, in Portuguese, using a .com.br domain, to Brazilian customers. Users accept EULAs in Portuguese, citing Brazilian law, and the other party is the Brazilian office. Comparing this to enforcing jurisdiction abroad is a joke and totally stupid. The court wants the local office to block the video to local users, not preventing worldwide access to the video.

Second of all, the law is ridiculous and it is from decades ago, from a pre-Internet world and it was made to control the message since politicians or their close allies own most of TV and paper media in Brazil. This kind of law makes no sense in a world with Internet and user-generated content. I am totally opposed to this law and the Brazilian defamation laws in general.

But, having said that, I also think that a company has to comply with the laws and especially with a court order. (They can dispute in court if they don't like it, but they cannot pick and choose what to comply.) And the appropriate response for not following the laws or for contempt is arresting the top executive of said company. I just wish we were as severe to punish misdeeds from companies as severely as when we are trying to enforce a ridiculous and arcane law from the 50-60s.

Remember, the executive is not being punished for the video, which is sadly illegal under the current laws (the author if found is liable for defamation, libel and breaking the electoral law). The top executive is being held responsible for his company not preventing access to the video in the state of Mato Grosso when requested by a lawful court order and given one week to comply; once he received the court order he decided to sit on it (and there are plenty of legal avenues to avoid compliance — one is to get a "counter-order" from a different judge).

So I have mixed feelings about this whole imbroglio: in one hand it's great when companies are finally held liable (= people going to jail) when breaking laws, but on the other hand I'm really sad because I think the law is wrong in this case. I would love Google to successfully challenge the law using the proper legal avenues, and I like the publicity this case is generating because this may force the Legislative's hand into amending or retiring these obsolete laws — but I'm not holding my breath.

"Google is appealing the decision that ordered the removal of the video on YouTube because, as a platform, Google is not responsible for the content posted to its site,"

I always love this type of logic. Just because Google may not be "legally" responsible here in the U.S. or other places because the Google logic or policy is accepted, does not mean that some places may not hold Google responsible and don't care a flip about Google rules or policy.

I always love this type of logic. Just because Google may not be "legally" responsible here in the U.S. or other places because the Google logic or policy is accepted, does not mean that some places may not hold Google responsible and don't care a flip about Google rules or policy.

Reminds me of how in Canada.. Foxnews is not considers news.... it's just entertainment here and not apart of the "news bundle".

I'm from Brazil and here we do NOT have freedom of speech. Brazil is one of the countries which has more requests to take down content from internet.

I'm also being sued by a deputy called Cidinha Campos just because I callled her "slut". The politicians don't understand how the internet works. They're completely outdated.

Calling someone a slut has nothing to do with the internet or the times we live in. It is defamation, and more than that it is rude. If you don't like her policies, that's different and you should say so.

I do not think people should take others to court for being insulting, but then I don't think people should insult others, either.

Both the video in this article and the anti-Islamic video can be as insulting and undignified as the authors desire. The point is, freedom of speech and expression should be protected, regardless of the content. If the content offends you, DON'T WATCH IT. True democracy cannot be sustained under censorship.

Brazilian police questioned Coelho, but released him saying that he had a "low potential to offend" and had signed a statement agreeing to appear in front of the authorities when summoned, according to the BBC.

Glad I don't live in Brazil where you can be held by the State until you are forced to sign a mandate whether you agree to it or not.

Quote:

Coelho was charged with violating an electoral code that prohibits offending the dignity of a candidate.

LMAO. I suppose a lot of people would be in prison if we had that "rule" in the US.

Also - what is interesting is that Coehlo is being blamed as opposed to the Google itself. In the US if they were to blame a specific person at a Compnay they'd have to prove that any action was directly linked to that individual - they don't seem to have that "problem" in Brazil.

Quote:

Coelho was charged with violating an electoral code that prohibits offending the dignity of a candidate.

I wonder how many people would be charged in the US if we had that same law in place ? Basically this maens if that candidate's feelings get hurt - then it is a crime. Sounds like its time for some legislative overhaul in Brazil.

Quote:

failure to remove content ordered illegal by a judge in Brazil could bring a sentence of up to a year in jail.

Coehlo has some deep seeded loyalty to Google if he goes to jail for a company policy - wow. I sure as hell ain't getting paid enough for that.

@ MEGAN:

Quote:

A state court in São Paulo, Brazil yesterday gave Google 10 days to remove that video as well,

Is this for a YouTube Site specific to Brazil or YouTube's main Site located in the US ? Some clarification in the article would be nice.

One is copyright infringement, the other is censorship, how can you equate them to be the same thing?

What's the difference? You're restricting the free flow of culture by enforcing a temporary monopoly on one hand, and restricting the free flow of information by enforcing a false image on the other. Both come with the threat of detainment from society, a loss of liberty.

In the US, one of the actors in the offending video recently asked a court to have the video removed, but that motion was denied.

One question: What the hell did he think was going to happen when he was acting in this film? Tremendous foresight on this one.

Off topic: not entirely her fault from what I've read/heard. The actors did scenes without context and sometimes dialog. After the shooting was over, they brought the actors and others into the recording booth and had them speak lines--sometimes only words. All of the offending dialog was pieced together after fact and not with the knowledge of the actors and much of the crew. Which sucks. That said I still don't think the video should be taken down--instead people should be less sensitive.

Yes well most nations have publically funded elections and those dollars don't go to funding attack ads that aren't true. Trust me you can do a lot of damage with just the truth, such as voting records... But that's far too civilized for americans to understand I guess.

I'm from Brazil and here we do NOT have freedom of speech. Brazil is one of the countries which has more requests to take down content from internet.

I'm also being sued by a deputy called Cidinha Campos just because I callled her "slut". The politicians don't understand how the internet works. They're completely outdated.

Is this typical USian ignorance? Why do you think that the way the US democracy works is the only and true form that the world has to strive for? Different democratic countries esp. in Europe have a different emphasis on human and civil rights and I'm glad they don't follow the USian example. Every right has limits and so does the right to Free Speech and thats true even in the US. I'm glad that I live in Europe where the most basic human right has the highest priority - the right to life and to physical integrity. Without life and with danger to my physical well being there is no free speech. Those righteous Usian would do well to remember that they themselves live in a country were you can get locked up, tortured or even killed by your government without a trial before lecturing others about democracy!

I'm from Brazil and here we do NOT have freedom of speech. Brazil is one of the countries which has more requests to take down content from internet.

I'm also being sued by a deputy called Cidinha Campos just because I callled her "slut". The politicians don't understand how the internet works. They're completely outdated.

Is this typical USian ignorance? Why do you think that the way the US democracy works is the only and true form that the world has to strive for? Different democratic countries esp. in Europe have a different emphasis on human and civil rights and I'm glad they don't follow the USian example. Every right has limits and so does the right to Free Speech and thats true even in the US. I'm glad that I live in Europe where the most basic human right has the highest priority - the right to life and to physical integrity. Without life and with danger to my physical well being there is no free speech. Those righteous Usian would do well to remember that they themselves live in a country were you can get locked up, tortured or even killed by your government without a trial before lecturing others about democracy!

Is this typoical European over response? since daniel is from BRAZIL and doesnt mention the US at all.

I'm from Brazil and here we do NOT have freedom of speech. Brazil is one of the countries which has more requests to take down content from internet.

I'm also being sued by a deputy called Cidinha Campos just because I callled her "slut". The politicians don't understand how the internet works. They're completely outdated.

Is this typical USian ignorance? Why do you think that the way the US democracy works is the only and true form that the world has to strive for? Different democratic countries esp. in Europe have a different emphasis on human and civil rights and I'm glad they don't follow the USian example. Every right has limits and so does the right to Free Speech and thats true even in the US. I'm glad that I live in Europe where the most basic human right has the highest priority - the right to life and to physical integrity. Without life and with danger to my physical well being there is no free speech. Those righteous Usian would do well to remember that they themselves live in a country were you can get locked up, tortured or even killed by your government without a trial before lecturing others about democracy!

Is this typoical European over response? since daniel is from BRAZIL and doesnt mention the US at all.

They just mad cause the EU economy is in ruins. So they want to spin that they somehow have more civil rights than a country not even mentioned in the article

I am Brazilian and I am against any kind of censorship. Although our constitution provide us with "freedom of spech" we still have cases like these that happen from time to time ... and believe me that makes me very unhappy.

Brazilian police questioned Coelho, but released him saying that he had a "low potential to offend" and had signed a statement agreeing to appear in front of the authorities when summoned, according to the BBC.

Glad I don't live in Brazil where you can be held by the State until you are forced to sign a mandate whether you agree to it or not.

Which of course is not what the article said or what happens. What happened here was that the police followed a court order and detained Mr. Coelho, because the offense was not of a violent nature and he was not deemed a flight risk he was given the option of instead of being detained to sign a document agreeing to appear in court. How's that bad? That's a proportional, well reasoned response to the circumstances

fferitt25 wrote:

Quote:

Coelho was charged with violating an electoral code that prohibits offending the dignity of a candidate.

LMAO. I suppose a lot of people would be in prison if we had that "rule" in the US.

Also - what is interesting is that Coehlo is being blamed as opposed to the Google itself. In the US if they were to blame a specific person at a Compnay they'd have to prove that any action was directly linked to that individual - they don't seem to have that "problem" in Brazil.

Google Brasil was blamed, and Mr. Coelho as the top executive of the company is responsible for the actions of the company, would you prefer that the court order be ignored with no consequences?

fferitt25 wrote:

Quote:

Coelho was charged with violating an electoral code that prohibits offending the dignity of a candidate.

I wonder how many people would be charged in the US if we had that same law in place ? Basically this maens if that candidate's feelings get hurt - then it is a crime. Sounds like its time for some legislative overhaul in Brazil.

That's not what it means, we have several decades of jurisprudence defining what it means to offend the dignity of a person. This is a case of a judge miss-applying the law, existing history show this is likely to be overthrown in appeal. It's, however, indeed a bad law, yeah we need to fix it.

fferitt25 wrote:

Quote:

failure to remove content ordered illegal by a judge in Brazil could bring a sentence of up to a year in jail.

Coehlo has some deep seeded loyalty to Google if he goes to jail for a company policy - wow. I sure as hell ain't getting paid enough for that.

@ MEGAN:

Quote:

A state court in São Paulo, Brazil yesterday gave Google 10 days to remove that video as well,

Is this for a YouTube Site specific to Brazil or YouTube's main Site located in the US ? Some clarification in the article would be nice.

We're talking about Google Brasil, the judge isn't trying to order anything about any other branch of Google.

I always love this type of logic. Just because Google may not be "legally" responsible here in the U.S. or other places because the Google logic or policy is accepted, does not mean that some places may not hold Google responsible and don't care a flip about Google rules or policy.

Reminds me of how in Canada.. Foxnews is not considers news.... it's just entertainment here and not apart of the "news bundle".

Well, it's not news. So good on you guys. But talk about a loose interpretation of the word entertainment...

I'm from Brazil and here we do NOT have freedom of speech. Brazil is one of the countries which has more requests to take down content from internet.

I'm also being sued by a deputy called Cidinha Campos just because I callled her "slut". The politicians don't understand how the internet works. They're completely outdated.

It's sad that you think calling someone a "slut" is not wrong. By the way if you're being sued by the congresswoman(deputy is not the correct translation of "deputada") that is not all that could happen defamation is a crime, she could have reported the incident to the police and then you would be in whole lot more trouble.

Like other people said, meaningful, thoughtful disagreement has nothing to do with name calling.